start_preview_server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'simple HTTP server' but fails to disclose key behaviors: whether the server blocks, how to stop it, security implications, or what it serves. Essential behavioral context is missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (one line plus args list), which is concise but lacks structure. The 'Args:' block is minimal and does not separate parameter descriptions. Could be improved with clearer formatting.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given two simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should be complete enough. It omits critical context: what happens upon starting (e.g., blocking vs background), how to stop the server, and expected output. Incomplete for a server-starting tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It repeats parameter names and adds the default for port (already in schema), but does not explain what 'directory' should contain or any constraints. Minimal added value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Start a simple HTTP server to preview exported sprites.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like stop_preview_server.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need to export sprites first) or when to avoid it. The presence of stop_preview_server implies pairing but is not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.